outliner-collection_visibility_set

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely says 'set restrictions,' which is vague and does not disclose whether existing settings are overwritten, if the operation is reversible, or if any side effects occur (e.g., affecting linked collections). The verb 'set' implies mutation but gives no safety or behavior details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and scope. It contains no fluff or repetition, making it highly concise and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple setter with four boolean/string parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain error behavior (e.g., missing collection), whether the tool creates or updates collections, or any interplay with other outliner tools. Given the lack of annotations, a bit more context would be helpful but is not critically deficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description mentions the three boolean aspects (viewport, render, selectability) and the target 'collection', which aligns with the schema. However, it does not add meaning beyond the schema titles—no defaults, format expectations for 'collection', or explanation of how each flag behaves (e.g., whether unset flags are left unchanged). With 0% schema coverage, more compensation was expected.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: setting collection-level viewport, render, and selectability restrictions. It specifies the resource (collection) and the aspects (viewport/render/selectability), distinguishing it from sibling tools like outliner-visibility_set (likely object-level) and outliner-layer_collection_set (layer assignments).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for collections ('collection-level') but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., whether the collection must exist) or comparisons with related tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.